Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 64

Thread: Inline dieing??

  1. #46
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Aberdeen
    Posts
    2,975
    Quote Originally Posted by Ferrer
    The USA Golfs are powered by 2.5-litre 5 cylinder engines. Therefore it's entirely possible to develop a performance engine out of it and put it in the TT. Another manufacturer with 5 cylinder engines in their range is Lancia, both petrol and diesel (the whole Fiat group use the latter).
    i think the i5 is not intended for europe (ie TT), but good reasoning anyway, see:
    http://www.autozine.org/html/Volkswagen/Jetta.html

    note the engine discussion.
    autozine.org

  2. #47
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Amsterdam/Heerenveen, The Netherlands
    Posts
    519
    There will probably come a TT-RS with an inline 5 turbo. I read it in some carmag, dont remember which one tho.

  3. #48
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Barcelona
    Posts
    33,495
    Quote Originally Posted by quattro_20v
    There will probably come a TT-RS with an inline 5 turbo. I read it in some carmag, dont remember which one tho.
    The last thing I've read is that apparently the 2.5-litre 5 cylinder has been dropped for the RS and that it'll now have the 3.6-litre V6 found under Passat's R36 bonnet.
    Lack of charisma can be fatal.
    Visca Catalunya!

  4. #49
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    1,508
    Quote Originally Posted by jediali
    the TVR ajp straight 6 in the tuscan is n/a and 4.0l and has 440hp, this is one of my favourite engines, racing technology for the road. I would say a 5.0 V10 making 507hp could go further, s2000 also has 120 hp/litre.
    It's unlikely the original S2000 motor was producing an honest 120hp/L. Honda re-rated the 2.2L version of the S2000 a year or two ago because the old method they had been using to measure power was too optimistic for the SAE. The engine was reduced in rated power to something like 236hp (still not too shabby). It is quite likely the original 2L motor was also no more than 236hp. Again, not bad given it's small displacement. One more thing to note, The Duratec based 3L V6 in the Jag produces about 240hp and weighs around 360lb. The S2000 motor produces 236hp and weighs about 340lb. I don't know about you but I would rather have the extra two pots and the much better low end torque.
    hp/l is not a good measure of a motor and without knowing a lot about what a motor is meant to do (design intent) is an even worse measure.

  5. #50
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    1,508
    Quote Originally Posted by jediali
    I really don't know the Australian market, i know a significant amount of the sports cars brits/Europeans see offer high performance n/a engines. However my research (which i have actively studied carried out over the past 4 years or so) is based on technical principals and one of the reasons i am motivated to find out how n/a performance works is because i think it should and can be done more often in cars.

    My principal interest is in gas flow and geometry tuning. By designing clever intakes, exhausts and valve systems you can achieve things such as inertia gas filling, induction expansion wave filling, valve overlap, reverse supercharging (use exhaust vacuum to induce air), this therefore increases the many efficiencies (these are air,cycle, indicated, real gas, time, heat, blowdown, leakage, pumping etc. etc.. deficiencies) in the engine function therefore getting more bang for your litre without forced induction.
    Before you fall in love with hp/L please read this thread:
    http://www.s2ki.com/forums/index.php...&#entry3197536
    This post is a bit dated and the content could be cleared up some but the general idea is correct.
    I assume Scotland is one of those places were displacement is taxed so it does make sense to care about hp/l in a street car. Personally I think a mild turbo/sc setup is more satisfying than a Honda type screamer. I think a larger displacement NA motor is better yet (BMW I6, Ford 2.5L SVT Duratec/Mondeo ST200 in Europe). Note that in the US Honda decided to equip the higher power Accords with 240hp 3L V6 motors, not 240hp 2.xL I4s. Certainly they have demonstrated that they could do it but they didn't want to. Also, once you drive a Corvette with all that silly powerful torque, it's hard to give it up even if high RMP is nice.

    PS: I currently have two cars. One has a 2L turbo, the other is a 1.8L. The Corvette wasn’t mine

  6. #51
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    4,031
    Before you fall in love with hp/L please read this thread:
    http://www.s2ki.com/forums/index.php...&#entry3197536
    We can blame Hp/L on the French. Way back in the day the French government decided to tax cars based on power. According to my 1916 engineer's handbook ...
    (((sigh))) not another one of those 'USA blames everything on the French' type of post. I wouldn't dare risk being anti-American but gee how many centuries ago was it that you guys gained your much-vaunted independance?

  7. #52
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    St Marys Western Sydney
    Posts
    20,953
    Quote Originally Posted by culver
    It's unlikely the original S2000 motor was producing an honest 120hp/L. Honda re-rated the 2.2L version of the S2000 a year or two ago because the old method they had been using to measure power was too optimistic for the SAE. The engine was reduced in rated power to something like 236hp (still not too shabby). It is quite likely the original 2L motor was also no more than 236hp. Again, not bad given it's small displacement. One more thing to note, The Duratec based 3L V6 in the Jag produces about 240hp and weighs around 360lb. The S2000 motor produces 236hp and weighs about 340lb. I don't know about you but I would rather have the extra two pots and the much better low end torque.
    hp/l is not a good measure of a motor and without knowing a lot about what a motor is meant to do (design intent) is an even worse measure.
    I think that was also because the 2.2L didnt rev as high as the 2L.
    I am the Stig

  8. #53
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    1,508
    Quote Originally Posted by nota
    (((sigh))) not another one of those 'USA blames everything on the French' type of post. I wouldn't dare risk being anti-American but gee how many centuries ago was it that you guys gained your much-vaunted independance?
    No, actually it was the French who first tried to tax engine power and they did it based on displacement. It's a statement of fact not anything else. Furthermore, it set the trend to tax engines based on displacement and explains in part why the European market would favor say a 150hp 1.6L over a 150hp 2L. This despite the fact that the 2L is likely to have better low end power and will likely suffer no mileage penalty in comparison to the smaller displacement engine.
    If you have any issue with the facts of the post that is fine but please don't assume "anti-French" attitude where non exists.

  9. #54
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    1,508
    Quote Originally Posted by fpv_gtho
    I think that was also because the 2.2L didnt rev as high as the 2L.
    Both engines were rated at 240hp using the old Honda system. Only the 2.2L was retested using the new system. It seems likely that both engines would drop a similar amount given that they weren’t much different in power delivery (as compared to a 3L V6 for example). The 2.0L might have lost a bit more or a bit less when retested but chances are very unlikely it would have retained its 240hp rating. I don’t believe a single Honda motor even maintained its old power rating when they were retested. Again, I suspect the old engine was about the same power as the 2.2L and was almost certainly not delivering the advertised 240hp (based on the new SAE test).

  10. #55
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Rozenburg, Holland
    Posts
    27,323
    Quote Originally Posted by culver
    No, actually it was the French who first tried to tax engine power and they did it based on displacement. It's a statement of fact not anything else. Furthermore, it set the trend to tax engines based on displacement and explains in part why the European market would favor say a 150hp 1.6L over a 150hp 2L. This despite the fact that the 2L is likely to have better low end power and will likely suffer no mileage penalty in comparison to the smaller displacement engine.
    If you have any issue with the facts of the post that is fine but please don't assume "anti-French" attitude where non exists.
    It is still being used in a number of european countries, however the use of the weight of the car for road tax purposes is also being applied, and additional taxes are being raised in case the less taxed fuels like diesel or LPG are being used.
    "I find the whole business of religion profoundly interesting, but it does mystify me that otherwise intelligent people take it seriously." Douglas Adams

  11. #56
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Aberdeen
    Posts
    2,975
    Quote Originally Posted by culver
    It's unlikely the original S2000 motor was producing an honest 120hp/L. Honda re-rated the 2.2L version of the S2000 a year or two ago because the old method they had been using to measure power was too optimistic for the SAE. The engine was reduced in rated power to something like 236hp (still not too shabby). It is quite likely the original 2L motor was also no more than 236hp. Again, not bad given it's small displacement. One more thing to note, The Duratec based 3L V6 in the Jag produces about 240hp and weighs around 360lb. The S2000 motor produces 236hp and weighs about 340lb. I don't know about you but I would rather have the extra two pots and the much better low end torque.
    hp/l is not a good measure of a motor and without knowing a lot about what a motor is meant to do (design intent) is an even worse measure.
    good point - see my "V10 idea" thread in technical forums

    (p.s. if i owned an s2000 (the 2.0,not the 2.2 designed for Americans who didn't like changing gears all the time), i wouldn't be towing caravans, and although its a peaky and less torquey engine its the enjoyment that counts - As for the Jag(ford) 3.0 V6 it has the numbers but more subjectively it sounds/feels harsh when revved and lacks low end grunt (unlike say a BMW 3.0 i6)..my argument is based on fun here.
    Last edited by jediali; 11-23-2006 at 07:31 AM.
    autozine.org

  12. #57
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    1,508
    Quote Originally Posted by jediali
    good point - see my "V10 idea" thread in technical forums

    (p.s. if i owned an s2000 (the 2.0,not the 2.2 designed for Americans who didn't like changing gears all the time), i wouldn't be towing caravans, and although its a peaky and less torquey engine its the enjoyment that counts - As for the Jag(ford) 3.0 V6 it has the numbers but more subjectively it sounds/feels harsh when revved and lacks low end grunt (unlike say a BMW 3.0 i6)..my argument is based on fun here.
    Interestingly the reason Honda went to 2.2L in the US was because of market research. They found S2000 buyers were almost always happy with the 2L motor. But when they asked people who didn't buy they found the engine was high on the list. Because we have lots of bigger bore motors in the US people generally have a certain expectation for power. I used to own a Contour SVT (Mondeo ST200). I had a friend with a 2L S2000. Even though the Contour wasn't as quick as the Honda he noted the extra low end power as compared to the Honda. Mind you we are talking about a 2.5L vs 2L engine, not a huge difference. I actually do agree with your comments about the Jag engine. The BMW mill is generally nicer but the older ones were all heavier than the Jag motor. The newest family of BMW I6s are quite light but they achieve that via expensive construction techniques. Personally I like the 2.5L SVT Duratec better than the 3L I6 in my friend's 2002 530. The BMW motor is a better motor but the SVT motor has more character... and sounds SOOOOO good.
    I personally like the wider torquier power band in my motors. I developed that like back when I had a 1.6L Toyota with poor synchros. The poor synchros got me in the habit of shifting early and letting the torque do the work. It's a habit I've maintained when not driving aggressively even though I've never owned a car with more than 2.5L.
    As for what we each enjoy, yes, shifting is fun but at the same time I like having some power down low. It's a preference but it suits my day to day driving style. I'm certainly not against running motors to the red line (a wonderful experience in my Ford... so-so in my Miata) but when I'm just tooling along in traffic low end grunt is nice.
    Really, if you ever get a chance to drive a Corvette or V8 Camaro (neither common in Europe) it really is worth it. The low end punch of the current Corvette really is astounding. The first time I drove the car it was below freezing. In second gear you couldn't give it full gas because it would spin the tires. It would even spin the tires when you gently rolled into the gas. That sort of power really is something.

  13. #58
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Rozenburg, Holland
    Posts
    27,323
    Quote Originally Posted by culver
    As for what we each enjoy, yes, shifting is fun but at the same time I like having some power down low. It's a preference but it suits my day to day driving style. I'm certainly not against running motors to the red line (a wonderful experience in my Ford... so-so in my Miata) but when I'm just tooling along in traffic low end grunt is nice.
    some people may expect this comment from me, but this is really why I choose a diesel, low end punch is there, and it is actually all you need to get going very quickly...
    "I find the whole business of religion profoundly interesting, but it does mystify me that otherwise intelligent people take it seriously." Douglas Adams

  14. #59
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    1,508
    I haven't driven many diesels (I can't say I've ever driven a diesel car) but I've always heard that. A very appropriate power curve for most driving.

  15. #60
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Rozenburg, Holland
    Posts
    27,323
    Quote Originally Posted by culver
    I haven't driven many diesels (I can't say I've ever driven a diesel car) but I've always heard that. A very appropriate power curve for most driving.
    It never fails to amaze me that modern diesel cars are so geared to what is generally be considered the American style of lazy and relaxed driving, and still there is this in-built prejudice against them...
    "I find the whole business of religion profoundly interesting, but it does mystify me that otherwise intelligent people take it seriously." Douglas Adams

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •